Opinion
JENNIFER CALFAS
EDITOR IN CHIEF
AARICA MARSH
and DEREK WOLFE
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS
LEV FACHER
MANAGING EDITOR
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s editorial board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, September 14, 2015
Who are the Iran nuclear
deal haters?
Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Ben Keller, Payton Luokkala, Aarica
Marsh, Adam Morton, Victoria Noble, Michael Paul, Anna Polumbo-
Levy, Allison Raeck, Melissa Scholke, Michael Schramm, Stephanie
Trierweiler, Mary Kate Winn, Jenny Wang, Derek Wolfe
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
A
former reality TV star is the
biggest name in news for the
next Republican presiden-
tial
nomination.
On the other side,
a socialist and a
familiar face lead
the way for the
Democrats. Hill-
ary Clinton has
been
mired
in
controversy
for
the entire sum-
mer. Meanwhile,
Bernie Sanders, a
doggedly radical
leftist, is gaining surprising trac-
tion in the age of big-money poli-
tics.
Sanders has raised over $15 mil-
lion dollars, and according to the
New York Times, the average dona-
tion to Sanders’ campaign is a
meager $31.30.
Sanders isn’t alone. Trump is also
making waves on the right by prom-
ising to run his campaign without
accepting any fundraising donations
from lobbyists.
Since the 2010 Citizens United
decision by the U.S. Supreme Court,
corporations and super PACs have
been pouring money into elections
in ever-greater amounts. Unlim-
ited donations to campaigns by
individuals and corporations alike
is the law of the land. Quickly, the
image of corporate lobbyists, sitting
fingers-crossed in each politician’s
office while dressed like old-fash-
ioned mobsters ready to make “an
offer you can’t refuse,” entered the
American consciousness.
President Barack Obama made
headlines with his grassroots fund-
raising success in 2008, but he wasn’t
a candidate dedicated to shun-
ning the entire established order
of things like Sanders and Trump
have become.
In a post-Citizens United world,
conventional wisdom says those who
don’t sell out to corporate interests
don’t stand a chance at winning an
elected office. Politicians themselves
have played into their natural role,
following the money and, in the
worst cases, allowing their careers
to be held aloft by the money of
the rich.
Without the support of big money,
it’s awfully hard to win an election.
Except for the fact that now sum-
mer is over, and we’re still waiting
for the other shoe to drop on the
would-be punchline that was sup-
posed to be Trump’s campaign.
Like Sanders, he is bucking the
support of super PACs. Trump’s
own private wealth makes funding
a campaign much easier. Nonethe-
less, Trump is a renegade.
While Sanders relies on his mid-
dle-class supporters and a budget-
ed campaign to stay afloat, Trump
is independently wealthy enough
to finance his campaign without
external support. Yet each has
been, at to this point, successful,
despite their intentional steps away
from the traditional partisan scene.
As Americans, we laugh at the
idea of an honest politician, which
seems to us an apparent contradic-
tion. It’s what we would all love
to see, but it doesn’t seem pos-
sible. Trump is an enigma, a man
beyond
understanding.
But
he
finds himself aligned with Sanders’
hallmark activism.
The unlikely pair of opposites are
each finding success. While Sanders
is still behind Clinton by millions in
fundraising, he is seemingly poll-
ing just as well in multiple early pri-
mary states. Trump, as mentioned,
commands the GOP field. As often
as the phrase “out of touch” has
been thrown around among writ-
ers, Trump and Sanders are proving
otherwise. It is the political machine
itself that has run off the tracks laid
by its constituents.
While it remains to be seen, Amer-
icans on both sides of the aisle believe
Trump’s and Sanders’ promise of
an honest campaign: one in which
constituents won’t feel they have to
worry about who lined their presi-
dent’s pockets for a free pass to influ-
ence future policy.
Sanders embraces the title “social-
ist.” Trump speaks openly about his
wealth and his hair. They appear to
be connecting to the public on a basic
level of trust in the way most success-
ful, traditional bipartisan candidates
have done.
More than a desire for trust, by
striving to keep super PACs out of the
conversation, Trump and Sanders
are empowering the individual voter.
Knowing Sanders’ campaign sur-
vives on the donations from middle-
class supporters makes his strategy
all the more significant the longer
he stays relevant in the polls. His
campaign is more of a direct prod-
uct of his popular supporters than
any other.
Meanwhile, Trump is hacking
through the tradition of neo-conser-
vatism with seemingly reckless aban-
don. The key issues he has brought to
the spotlight surrounding immigra-
tion and tax reform are either in spite
of himself or part of a cartoonish
mastermind plan.
Either way, Trump and Sand-
ers are both succeeding, thanks
in part to an anti-establishment
message that meshes well with
millennial culture.
It’s what Kanye West, self-pro-
claimed millennial and aspirant for
the 2020 presidency, seemed to be
channeling at certain points during
his speech at the 2015 VMAs when
he lashed out against the media’s
manipulation of consumers, in a sim-
ilar way that politicians manipulate
their voters.
“It ain’t about me,” West said.
“It’s about new ideas, bro, people
with new ideas, people who believe
in truth.”
Any serious political forecaster
would still say that Trump and
Sanders are fringe candidates and
that their aspirations for the White
House will probably fall short.
While that may prove true, they
are each demonstrating a way of
fighting conventional wisdom in
ways similar to pop-culture icons
like West, who have been met with
thunderous applause.
West, with all the political quali-
fications of Trump, has somehow
entered the summer circus of politics
as well. It all seems too crazy. To this
point, the most embattled people in
this election have been longstanding
fixtures in politics, like Clinton, and
the parties themselves.
On one hand, it seems grotesquely
American to be living in a country
where this is all happening, like a
cliché joke:
A businessman, a hippy and a
singer walk into a bar … one of them
becomes president. HA HA HA.
I assume Kanye will quickly drop
out, but who’s to tell? Many said the
same about Trump. It’s all too sur-
real, a total sea-change from what
we’re used to in politics. As elec-
tion time draws nearer, maybe a
sense of normalcy will return. But
a political revolution has been the
game all along — Sanders even says
so outright.
Now, new millennial ideals can
be expressed to help shape the evo-
lution of politics.
If politicians can find a way to
run successful campaigns without
big money, and if millennials do
indeed subscribe to the idealistic
beliefs of the Kanye doctrine, the
old curmudgeons at party head-
quarters might start losing ground
that newer generations could use to
make room for change.
— Tyler Scott can be reached
at tylscott@umich.edu.
A political revolution
EVER FEELING LONELY BETWEEN 6 AND 8 P.M. ON
MONDAYS AND WEDNESDAYS?
Check out The Michigan Daily’s editorial board meetings. Every
Monday and Wednesday at 6 p.m., the Daily’s opinion staff meets
to discuss both University and national affairs, and write editorials.
E-mail tothedaily@michigandaily.com to join in the debate.
F
or the past half year, the Iran nuclear
deal has been discussed to the point of
nausea. The agree-
ment has been brought to a
TV near you because top-
ics like “nuclear weapons”
and “Middle East policy”
always make noise. So when
they collide, the American public wants to
know. But what is it about the particulars of
the Iran deal that render it so controversial?
Negotiators from six world powers laid
out a deal to cut off almost every pathway for
Iran to construct a nuclear bomb. First, Iran
must give up almost 97 percent of its enriched
uranium and can only enrich their remaining
stockpile to a measly 3.67 percent. (To build
a nuclear bomb, uranium must be at least 90
percent enriched.)
Furthermore,
Iran’s
centrifuges
(the
machines that can be used to mechani-
cally construct a bomb) have been cut from
20,000 to 6,104, and Iran is inhibited from
building new models. Finally, the origi-
nal core reactor manufacturing weapons-
grade plutonium (another element crucial
to nuclear bomb construction) will be
inoperable and its plutonium exported.
In return, economic sanctions crippling
Iran will be lifted, opening their market to
the world economy. The International Atomic
Energy Agency will keep a close watch over
Iranian nuclear development, and if they sus-
pect, for any reason, Iran is building a bomb,
the sanctions will “snap back,” or be rein-
stated. The deal will likely delay a nuclear
bomb for 25 years. Without a deal, some anal-
ysis indicates Iran could construct a bomb
within months.
The deal appears agreeably straightfor-
ward: There is little possibility of a nuclear
Iran and relief from economic sanctions will
improve conditions for Iranian citizens in the
long term. Seems like a win-win, right?
The deal’s haters don’t think so, and the most
outspoken among them happen to be right-
wing Israelis and American Jews. Many who
fall within this demographic feel that the Irani-
an nuclear deal will empower Iran economical-
ly and militarily, thereby jeopardizing Israel’s
existence, as the nation is so often threatened
by Middle Eastern leaders. But let me assure
you, their fears are unwarranted.
Before I continue, I must quickly note here
that I’m a Jewish American. I’ve had a Bar
Mitzvah, graduated from my temple’s Hebrew
school and volunteered in Israel. Additionally,
I proudly call myself a Zionist — a supporter
of Jews living in Israel. However, I, unlike too
many supporters of Israel, do not believe the
country will be extinguished and am critical of
the country’s political elite.
Those least critical of Israel are those most
afraid of losing it. Their insecurities case them
to instinctively block deals like the one with
Iran because any deal with the Middle East
appears threatening. Ultimately, their fears
cause them to prioritize security and inhibit
them from fully evaluating their own leaders.
Part of the reason for this is because Iran
nuclear deal haters feel they are in a world
more similar to 1963, when Israel was con-
sistently attacked by sovereign nations, its
infrastructure underdeveloped and its mili-
tary not one of the world’s best.
However, today’s Israel isn’t like that.
In its current state, Israel is a fully devel-
oped country with a per-capita GDP of over
$35,000. Israel’s citizens are college-educat-
ed at a rate second only to Canada, its tech-
nology and science sectors are among the
world’s elite, and Israel has one of the world’s
strongest militaries.
But, strategically, this is not how the
Israeli right portrays itself. Constantly men-
tioning the Holocaust and anti-Semitism
in his speeches, Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu instills fear in the public in order
to increase support for policies sometimes
criticized for prejudice and racism. Citizens
buy into his plan because the more fear-
ful Israelis become, the more security they
desire. The more security they desire, the
less sympathetic they are to issues regarding
non-Israelis — particularly peace talks with
Palestinians and other Arab (or Iranian) lead-
ers. The mindset with the Iran nuclear deal is
no different.
Fears of Israel’s extinction have even spread
to leftist American politicians. Jewish Repre-
sentatives like Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.), Nita
Lowey (D–N.Y.), Steve Israel (D–N.Y.) and Ted
Deutch (D–Fla.) are among those who have
followed the Israeli right’s lead in opposing
the Iran deal because of their panicked con-
stituents. They believe any deal with Iran is
bad because it will lead to Israel’s destruction.
Unfortunately, when people support policy
decisions based on the fear of their own (or
someone else’s) existential threat, it has serious
consequences. First, it severely prioritizes the
nation’s own rights over all others for fear of
being wiped from the planet. Their chief con-
cern becomes survival, thereby diminishing the
importance of all other “unthreatened” lives.
Second, because citizens are overly concerned
with their own safety, it allows representa-
tives to harvest more unchecked power. These
supporters strive for personal security by any
means necessary.
Consequently, this mindset overlooks two
critical points of the way modern day nation-
alism operates: the nature of globalization, in
which continuously more people are demand-
ing basic human rights, and the functioning
of democracy, in which leaders must be held
accountable for their actions.
But many Iran nuclear deal haters don’t
uphold these standards. They prioritize secu-
rity over peace, and safety over democracy. But
when policy leaders don’t prioritize peace, they
create more enemies and jeopardize security;
and when one fails to pursue a democratic life-
style, one sacrifices civil liberties and poten-
tially infringes upon the rights of others.
These opponents of the Iran nuclear deal
are concerned about the safety of Israel and
become unwilling to accept agreements even
when it’s in their best interest. They act this
way because they are afraid. Their fear is
my concern.
— Sam Corey can be reached
at samcorey@umich.edu.
SAM
COREY
TYLER
SCOTT
HOLLY RIDER-MILKOVICH | VIEWPOINT
Though individual experiences vary, two
decades of research make it clear that sexual
assault survivors are more likely to experi-
ence better outcomes in the legal and medical
systems when they are supported by well-
trained, confidential advocates. They also
report experiencing less isolation, anxiety
and re-victimization when they work with
confidential advocates.
And yet, our own campus climate survey of
students tells us that, right now, fewer than 5
percent of students share information about
sexual misconduct with the University. Even
more heartbreaking, the majority of students
who experience a sexual assault tell no one
about what happened to them.
The University of Michigan is not unique
in this regard, and other studies report that
sexual assault survivors on college campuses
are more likely to stay silent than share their
information with anyone.
If we care about the lives and futures of
sexual assault survivors, we must do every-
thing in our power to reduce their isolation
and increase their access to trained, experi-
enced and confidential advocates.
At the University’s Sexual Assault Preven-
tion and Awareness Center, we are committed
to empowering survivors by providing clear
and accurate information about their options
in a confidential environment, and supporting
their decisions — whether that be to formally
report the experience to the University, to law
enforcement or to not report their experience
to either entity.
We walk with survivors along the path
that they choose, offering encouragement,
resources and support at each step. We do not
share any information with other officials at
the University, or take any action, unless given
explicit direction to do so by the survivor.
If someone you love is sexually assaulted,
we strongly encourage you to listen to them
without judgment, believe them and affirm
their experience, support their decisions and
connect them to trained confidential advo-
cates like those at SAPAC.
We are available for students, staff, faculty
and parents 24 hours a day, seven days a week,
at 734-936-3333.
Holly Rider-Milkovich is the director of
the Sexual Assault Prevention and Awareness
Center at the University of Michigan.
Sexual assault survivors best
served by confidential advocates
E-mail HEidi at HEidimaE@umicH.Edu
HEIDI LIU